THE Jeff Tweaks MLB - Part II

By Phil Hecken, on April 30th, 2011

By Phil Hecken

Last week, THE Jeff Provo brought you his decidedly THE-like tweaks for the Junior Circuit of Major League Baseball. If you missed that post, you can check it out here. He’s back today with the National League — bigger and badder, to say the least. As with the first set, I think there were lots of swings and misses…but…like a Reginald Jackson home run swing, for every dozen whiffs, every once in a while he connects…and sometimes the ball ends up clearing the roof of Tiger Stadium.

As with last week, THE Jeff gives a brief writeup and then an ever briefer description of each uniform. And as before, there are no “home,” “road,” and “alternates.” Only “One,” “Two” and sometimes “Three.” Feel free to let him know how he did down in the comments. OK? OK!

Dig:

~~~

Tweaking The National LeagueBy “The” Jeff Provo

I don’t want to bore everyone with a big wall of text, but before we get to the concepts, I thought I should explain the basic thought process behind it all. Phil asked me to conceptualize the MLB, so I did. I’m not really much of a baseball fan, so I consider this whole project to be an exercise in design and creativity/insanity. I came up with 2 goals and one rule for myself to follow:

1. Add more color to the league – because white vs gray is boring, and changing one of them to navy doesn’t really help.
2. Make the teams more distinctive from each other, for the same reason

…and the rule:

No one is untouchable. Change *something* for every team, regardless of whether they actually need it or not.

I agree with the general idea that a few teams are untouchable in reality, but what fun is tweaking a league if you can’t touch some of the teams?

One last note – I’ve depicted all NOBs as straight, simply because I don’t know of a quick, convenient way to arch them in my graphics program I just did 30 teams in a week, I’m allowed to take shortcuts. If you think a certain team should have an arched NOB, you’re probably right.

Florida – I made a Miami wordmark based on their current one, added orange to replace the black … which made them look a bit like another Miami sports team and I just went with it. (One, Two, and Three)

Houston – I think the red-to-yellow looks better as a smooth gradient than it did as clunky colored bars. (One)

LA Dodgers – Why do the Dodgers have red numbers? I don’t know either, so I fixed them. (One and Two)

Milwaukee – Some people say their logo looks like it should be on a bottle cap. I say yes. Yes it should. (One, Two, and Three)

NY Mets – Sorry Phil, I had to bring out the racing stripes. At least there’s no black. :) (One, Two, and Three)

Philadelphia – Brought back the maroon (or is it burgundy?), but with a modern twist. (One, two, and Three)

Pittsburgh – Influenced by the 70’s, but not an exact copy. (One, Two, and Three)

San Diego – I’m not a fan of religion, but when your team name is religious, why not have a cross on the collar? (One and Two)

San Francisco – Very subtle change to the regular uniforms, but the “stealth” 3rd is new. I don’t know why, it just looks good to me. (One, Two, and Three)

St. Louis – I put St Louis text on the gray uniform, and got rid of the blue hat. (One, Two, and Three)

Washington – The new color scheme may have been influenced a bit by other concepts of late… and then there’s the blatant overly patriotic alternate. (One, Two, and Three)

Yes, there are some darker colors… that’s why they have cool flow jerseys and moisture whicking fabrics. Plus they’re in the shaded dugout for half the game anyway. So, no, you can’t complain about that part.

~~~

Thanks (again) THE. A lot of “what the hell are you thinking?”‘s but also some gems in there. To wit, I am loving this. I have long felt some team needs to really go to a darker gray, almost charcoal road uni — maybe the Giants aren’t that team, but I like what you did here. Also digging this and its monochrome mate, and for some reason, I like this (even though pins don’t belong on a roadie). Maybe it’s the combination of maroon & gray, which reminds me of my High School colors. And of course, this is nice too. Some of your others? Well, I’ll let you figure out what ain’t workin’.

How about you readers? How’d THE do?

~~~~~~~~~~

And now a quick word from Paul:

As you may have noticed in the right sidebar, the Dealometry folks are offering a new half-price deal, this time for a golf club membership. Just wanted to let you folks know that this deal will expire at midnight on Sunday night. So if you’re interested in it, you should act fast.

Remember, if possible, try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per tweak. You guys have been great a keeping to that, and it’s much appreciated!

And so, lets begin:

~~~

Up first is Ron Rowland, a first-timer to UW tweaks, but hardly a newbie to graphic design:

Hi Phil,

Long-time fan of the blog. First time contributor. Life long baseball fan and graphic designer by trade, so this is the perfect convergence of interests for me.

Here’s my first tweak. I’ll call it the “Milwaukee Mashup” It takes the best elements of the current and past Brewers Uni’s

Home:
Lettering/navy-gold color palette: from the current design. Pinstripe design and hat logo: from the venerated 80’s look now the basis for their home alts.
I used Rockwell Bld Cond for the player number. I think the thicks and thin complement the script font better.

Road:
Bit of a departure for the Brewers, gives more prominence to the “MB” mark with piping configuration comes from current set.

Hope it’s worthy of a post. I’ve got more ideas cooking.

All the best,
Ron Rowland

~~~

Next up is Mark Lilley, another graphic designer, with these several concepts for the Denver Nuggets:

Hi,

Here are my Uni tweaks for the Denver Nuggets. I was an unemployed graphic designer back in 2002 trying to land a job with Adrenalin Design, the firm who designed the current Nuggets and Avalanche jerseys, (among many, many teams if you check out their site).

I created the red/gold concept at the time, and then when the team changed to the Sky Blue in 2003, I swapped out the colors. It’s been almost 10 years, and I still think they stand the test of time and look pretty sharp.

Thanks,
Mark

PS, I got an interview but they weren’t hiring.

~~~

And finally we have Chris Fuller, with a Carolina Panther helmet concept:

I’m a Photoshop newb but even I was able to come up with something more contemporary for the Panthers… I mean, come on Jerry! Same helmet for 17 years?
Just change it so we can have a throwback something…. maybe this could be a fake throwback, nobody will know the difference, they don’t pay attention to us anyway!

~~~

Great stuff — all new to the tweaking game (on UW anyway). Back with more tomorrow.

~~~~~~~~~~

And that will do it for today. Everyone have a great Saturday.

~~~

I don’t think “patriot soldier” when I see camo. I think “fat guy who buys all his clothes at Bass Pro Shop.” — Cort McMurray

84 comments to THE Jeff Tweaks MLB – Part II

You know, Phil… you really should have used one of the less extreme concepts for the lead image. Lull people into a false sense of security, *then* hit them with the OH GOD WHAT AM I LOOKING AT stuff.

/and no comment on the monoblue Mets?

LI Phil|
April 30, 2011 at 7:33 am |

you know i don’t mind monochrome, but you may also know that racing stripes (esp. on the mets) are my LEAST favorite feature, so i can’t say i’m all too enamored with that one…i did like your saturday night special tribute, however, although that may be something that was best left one-and-done

as far as the splash? dude…it was either that or the rockies third

DCWalt|
May 2, 2011 at 4:24 pm |

I love the spirit of your work. MLB does need color. We keep clinging to how baseball looked in the 50’s. That is cool, but baseball has to be able to look to new ideas.

As for Mr. Provo, I LOVED this Diamondbacks idea (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5631745901_e21ca99f11_o.jpg), but one word of advice: If you’re going to use a contrast placket, make sure you use a crest-style graphic on the front of the jersey (Cubs, Yankees, etc.), because using a script causes the placket to be cut off at certain places, especially when it’s a double-decker script as shown in the tweak. But I still love it!

RS Rogers|
April 30, 2011 at 7:34 am |

Re the Nats flag-uni:

No! Noooooooooooooo! Nnnnnn-wwwwwooooooooaaaaaahhhhh!

And I say that as someone who thought this and this were good ideas at the time.

Although Los Nacionals totally do need a jersey with that “Nats” script on it. And the whole concept of balancing both red and blue as coequal colors, that basically nobody does quite right, and that the Nats of all teams really ought to: Nailed it. Red cap, blue jersey, red script, red underbits: yes.

The Jeff|
April 30, 2011 at 7:41 am |

I’ll admit I went a bit too far on that one… but I’d like to think that if the Nats did that, it’d be a way for the rest of the league to stop wearing the damn stars & stripes stuff. Let the Nationals attempt (and, probably fail) to be baseball’s “America’s Team”, and let everyone else stop looking stupid on the various patriotic holidays.

The red doesn’t come completely out of nowhere. If there weren’t some red on the uni, a certain group would be wondering why the hell not.

Some nice unis in among the risk takers, The Jeff. Phillies one and two, Pirates all three (three’s really interesting) and several others…

Not sure the multi-starred Nats special would get past the rules committee, though. All those flashing stars against navy (when moving on a pitcher) would defeat the purpose of the batter’s eye behind him. Still a fun idea, though. Maybe with normal white pants, making the jersey the signature element and giving the eye one place to go.

Having talked with guys who tried to hit against Eddie Feigner, his star-spangled uni didn’t help them any. Made it tougher to pick up the ball. Like finding the ball against the ceiling of the Metrodome, I imagine.

Interesting concepts. As Paul said, a lot of them didn’t work. Rockies, Cubs, and Phillies looked like pajamas. Reds alternate needs that baseball with the mustache logo that I can’t remember what its called. (too lazy to look it up) I wouldn’t mind if the Padres brought back the yellow and brown but people might be offended by the cross on the collar. A lot of them looked too softballish or minor league. I did like the Mets, Astros, Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Pirates though. That looked more like a cog than a bottle cap on the Brewers alternate, and with the wheat in the brewers logo, it almost looks like one of those communist propaganda posters. Workers of the world unite. I know Milwaukee is a blue-collar town, but I wouldn’t go that far with it! All in all, I think you did a good job. I know you worked hard on it at least. For that I commend you.

Special consideration: Fathers is generally an upgrade, but there are folks who would freak about adding explicitly religious imagery to a sports uniform, both from the side of hostility to the symbol and what it represents to those who find use of such a symbol in such a way a degradation of the symbol. It just ain’t worth it. Without that addition, a solid updoodle.

Overall best-in-show: Cubbies #3.

Gusto44|
April 30, 2011 at 10:56 am |

Yes, I found plenty to like among Jeff’s NL concepts, here they are:

Arizona 1(wish 2 also used the snake pattern)
Cubs 3(always liked those road pinstripes from the Sutter era)
Reds 1(monochrome for Cincy is overdue as an alternate)
Rockies 1 & 2(Colorado should have adopted these from the beginning instead of the Chisox look)
Miami 1,2,3(hope the Marlins are listening)
Houston 1(quality combo of different era elements, like the Pens Winter Classic uniform)
Brewers 3(like the bottlecap design)
Phillies 1 & 2(team needs logo on sleeve, tough to be the Liberty Bell they used in 1976)
Cards 2(city name on road uniform is completely appropriate, nobody is untouchable)
Giants 3(stealth look is unique)
Padres 1 & 2(another quality mashup, like the Steelers annual throwbacks)
Pirates 1(like the idea of a different logo on the sleeve along with the gold billed hat, road would be gray, and two alternates would be solid black and gold pinstripes)

Overall, very nice job, blending some tradition with new ideas.

The Jeff|
April 30, 2011 at 10:57 am |

Funny thing with San Diego, I don’t like the cross either. As an atheist, I’m very strongly opposed to religious imagery on sports uniforms (and in general). But I figure the Padres name itself is religious in origin, so why not? I sure as heck wouldn’t be rooting for them, but it seemed appropriate to me when I was doing the concepts.

Ultimately I’d love to change the name, or in the event of MLB expansion add a “Demons” or “Devils” team into the mix to balance it out.

/so… feel free to mentally delete it if it makes the uniform better in your eyes :)

Jet|
April 30, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

Padres and Angels – baseball
Saints – football

Devils – hockey

“good” is triumphing over “evil” LOL

-Jet

Ray Barrington|
April 30, 2011 at 10:43 am |

I can give you some reasons not to put a cross on the Padres uniforms … Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg … Just because Madonna uses it as a decoration doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

hodges14|
April 30, 2011 at 11:03 am |

MY EYES!!!

You should have an unwritten rule, Phil. NEVER let THE Jeff tweak jerseys. I had a heart attack when I saw the Mets ones.

As for the regular tweaks, the Brewers concept was nice, the Nuggets concept made me puke, and the Panthers concept was decent.

PS, I think THE Jeff stole something out of my Phillies MLB tweak from that contest, IE the liberty bell and the burgundy.

The Jeff|
April 30, 2011 at 11:24 am |

Wait… of all the non-traditional/weird/extreme things I did, the Mets is the uniform set that’s giving you fits?

CWac19|
April 30, 2011 at 11:09 am |

Great job, THE. Always appreciate your work, even if I’m not on board with all of the concepts — food for thought, and some pretty damn good ideas among them!

A few general observations: I think you have some winning concepts in there that are hurt simply by virtue of going the pullover route. Go button-down, and we’d have Charlie Sheen-style WINNING. Another element of The Jeff’s work with which I disagree: crests on the right chest. Just looks “off” somehow. Can’t get behind it. With those two overarching critiques out of the way, some team-specific observations:

— Braves – Always thought the idea of combining Braves eras was intriguing. Just wouldn’t have gone with those two. What about modern era and early 80’s, Dale Murphy-era, powder and royal color scheme?

— Cubs – I have never seen white pinstripes, except on a suit, that look good. No exception here.

— Reds – Would love to see Reds One as a Saturday night special. Let’s make Reds Two happen as their everyday roadie. Best, subtle improvement: ditching the black on the cap.

— Marlins – Add buttons and sign me up. Too bad we are more likely to see a very similar concept at the new ballpark, but with no orange and lots of black. The execution of the MIAMI wordmark is stellar.

— Astros – I LOVE this. Excellent fusion of two eras, each of which far more interesting than the forced retro of today. (There’s nothing that screams “outer space” more than a navy/brick color scheme and a train rumbling across a wall after HRs, am I right…?) Would love to see you take this concept, add buttons, and execute it on a gray and navy set.

— Mets – Sorry, Phil, but I think THE might have found the answer to my question from last week: how do we change up the Mets uni’s to ditch the black, go semi-retro, and pump up sales? Do this, but with buttons, and sub out the white hat at home for the royal hat.

— Pirates – Like Pirates Two (add buttons) and Pirates Three.

— Padres – The cross is, I’m sorry, just silly. It might be the one and only element of these tweaks that is never going to appear as a uni element, even as a one-time promotional gimmick. Focusing on the rest of the uniform: not one of your best efforts. Kind of uninspired. Baseball should not have wordmarks overarching centered numbers on the front of the jersey any more than NHL hockey teams should.

— Giants – I’m all about Giants Three. Sweet.

— Cardinals – LOVE the St. Louis wordmark! Add buttons and make that the new road set. Like Cards Three, as well, but do away with the white hat, and switch sides with the crest and front number.

Thanks, THE. Great fun on a Saturday morning.

Dave W|
April 30, 2011 at 11:14 am |

The Blue Jays tried a dark charcoal gray road uni back when they first adopted their current “Black Jays” unis (2004, I think). Not sure if it even lasted a season; it was pretty nasty. It doesn’t look so bad here http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?id=0w7rc2yupw6fc1ehfsxyqqes9, but it looked like absolute a$$ on the players.

T. Machnik|
April 30, 2011 at 11:18 am |

What? Nothing about Prince William’s uniform?????

CWac19|
April 30, 2011 at 11:42 am |

Makes the US Air Force mess dress look spartan by comparison…

Flip|
April 30, 2011 at 11:27 am |

I can dig that second Arizona set. Also the third one for Cincinnati, The entire Miami set works. The third Brewers’ jersey is a hoot. The Padres’ cross is sheer genius. Taking the red numbers off the Dodgers’ jerseys? There are other options, but this isn’t one of them.

The Jeff|
April 30, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Ok, I guess I need to ask…

Why do they have red numbers? I’ll admit I’ve never been very much of a baseball fan… but I always think of them as a blue & white team. The red numbers make no sense to me.

CWac19|
April 30, 2011 at 11:38 am |

Don’t know the answer to your question. Have kind of wondered about the origins myself. (Ricko references a spring training evolution story with which I’m not familiar…) That said, I’ve always appreciated the Dodgers’ red numbers as something akin to the Steelers’ “helmet logo on one side only” and the Tigers’ non-matching D’s that was just a fun quirk. Even if there’s no reason behind it, it sort of makes for a unique feature for an otherwise pleasantly plain uniform.

LI Phil|
April 30, 2011 at 11:42 am |

im not 100% positive on why the number is red, but i have always heard that since they were the first team to put numbers on the front of the jersey (1952), it was done for the benefit of the few people who owned color televisions

like the brownlue bronco, i am not sure if this is revisionist history or fact, but that is the rationale

does it make sense? about as much as a brown pony on the broncos lid to “ease the transition” for the fans who still longed for the brown and gold

whatever the reason, the quirk has been around for almost 60 years, and it’s not likely to change anytime soon (sorry, THE)

Ricko|
April 30, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

(See comment farther down that was supposed to be here. Thanks)

Flip|
April 30, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

Some things just are.

moose|
April 30, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

i am digging my garden today, so this is long because i am one and done…

and why should it change? because a couple peoples ocd’s think it does not belong? that’s foolish. jeff likes to bag on people for holding onto tradition, and sometimes he is right. but so often on these boards people need perfect symmetry, which is just as foolish. now all of us have some form of ocd, we wouldn’t enjoy this site otherwise, but i would love for this to be the first question we ask ourselves when we look at a uniform element that bothers us…”is it the actual element that stinks, or is it just my own compulsion that makes it bother me.” i think in many cases it is the ocd. i am extremely obsessive, anyone who gets a bobble, or sees my work in any way knows that, i am obsessive to the point where it can be crippling at times, but for some reason my ocd didn’t get that symmetry gene that some of you have, so i like quirks in many cases. por exemplo dodger red number=good, 80’s vikings three shades of purple=kind of stupid. florida gator’s no matter what colour they use as base the colours are always in the same place stripes=cool, mariners not having teal in the bill to match the teal alt=thank corn!

jeff i like that you try to look outside the box, and i know one of your criteria was change everyone, so as a tweak exercise in trying to think of the teams differently, and looking for change just to see if it could work, you did very well over the last couple saturdays. too many people are yes-ing and no-ing specific teams which is easy to do, but i try to look at it as a group of sketches, and there are some interesting elements, and ideas that for sure could be discussed, even if you do not have many on-field ready unis. so kudos. but one thing bothers me, you are not a baseball fan, so it is difficult for me to take any suggestion you have seriously. actually, that might even play in your favour, i don’t say to myself, and you call yourself a baseball fan?! while 30 is not that young, i am curious how you will feel in ten or twenty years about connecting to your past. there is nothing wrong with a little reflection, a little mcnally to mcgregor, to bodikar, to musssina, to gutherie tie, in part it is the connection to the past that makes sports fun, i don’t se why you want to throw it out almost universally.

lastly, i don’t have problems with dark uni sets, they can be used for night games where even if it is hot, the sun isn’t out, but re: dark sets…
“that’s why they have cool flow jerseys and moisture whicking fabrics. Plus they’re in the shaded dugout for half the game anyway. So, no, you can’t complain about that part.”
…on this your are just wrong. you have obviously not played a lot of games on a hot humid day under a bright crippling sun. the dugout provides only minimal and temporary relief from the sun stroke, and the thought that maybe you should have concentrated on a different sport. i’m just sayin that statement is crazy man.

CWac19|
April 30, 2011 at 11:33 am |

WIth all of The Jeff’s thought-provoking tweaks, Ron Rowland’s GENIUS Brewers road uniforms have been lost in the shuffle. That should be the Brewers road set AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Can’t say enough good things about it.

My basic reaction to THE Jeff’s tweaks is that I can’t really judge, as I don’t agree with the basic premise that white vs. gray is boring. There’s a certain dignity about baseball that isn’t there with, say, arena football, and the color palette reflect that. It’s the same reason I have problems with the Marlins’ and Mariners’ occasional ventures into the world of teal. There’s no dignity in teal.

I’m surprised that nobody’s mentioned yet that THE Jeff’s Pirates tweak incorporates a gold closer to the Penguins’ current color than the Steelers’.

Jet|
April 30, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

I really hate that gold when used on a uni, and the gold he has on the Brewers unis too.

-Jet

Jason Shane|
April 30, 2011 at 11:50 am |

Love this:

I don’t think “patriot soldier” when I see camo. I think “fat guy who buys all his clothes at Bass Pro Shop.” – Cort McMurray

Matt|
April 30, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

This set of tweak was MUCH better. Really like what us going on here.

Jerry|
April 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Wow some of these really suck.

LI Phil|
April 30, 2011 at 7:30 pm |

see my reply to joe, posted way down below

Ricko|
April 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

Color TV? 1952? Hardly in the forefront of Dodger thinking, I imagine.

NBC, which initiated color programming, offered only one hour a week in 1952 (“Colgate Comedy Hour”). Didn’t add more until Rose Parade in ’53. Was a long, slow process, and the number of homes with color TVs was absolutely miniscule. Growing up, my block had 42 single family homes, and was solidly middle to upper middle class. In about 1959, I remember watching the Ole Miss/LSU game in color at my best friend’s house. They had one of only two color TVs on the block (the other was at the Terrys, head and shoulders the most well-to-do family).

Dodgers used red in spring training both in red hats on coaching staff and even as large letters instead of numbers on the front of unis. Seems to me I’ve seen things like a huge red “S” or “A” where number now is. They brought SO many playes to Dodgertown at Vero Beach that I always assumed it had something to do with who was assigned where, to what level in the system. The number on the front also may have been part of that, to identify higher level players from the front, with red making it stand out. Eventually, it seemed to evolve that the front numbers “went north.”

Gusto44|
April 30, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

Speaking of old school TV, I really miss the old indian head test pattern from the 1960s.

Well I guess I’ll give them the spring training evolved thing… but red on the baseball in the non-uniform logo doesn’t really mean anything – see the New York Yankees.

If I had to redo them and keep the red numbers, I’d probably end up adding silver trim somewhere.

Ricko|
April 30, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

Wasn’t advocating for it or against it, just explaining it.
And sort of pointing that, as you noted, if the Yankees had decided to add a touch of red somewhere along the line it would have been the same sort of thing.

Phil (and everyone else), where are the complaints about all thestealthnumbers? Put those in contrasting colors and you got yourself something, The.

Braves, Reds, Marlins and Astros (although that hat logo is too busy and I’d add a 2nd uni), YES. The Cardinals are pretty good, too. I like the nod to the Federals, but I don’t like the return of the clunky Nationals font.

All in all, good stuff.

Along with digging Ron’s Brewers mashup, I like the red and gold Nuggets look from Mark. I’d change the number font, but everything else was good, especially the logo.

LI Phil|
April 30, 2011 at 7:18 pm |

“Phil (and everyone else), where are the complaints about all the stealth numbers?”

~~~

that’s uni element i do like — a LOT — the NC2A hoop-nazis pissed me off this past season when they eliminated that design element…now, does it ALWAYS work on EVERY team? no

*Sometimes* a white outline is superfluous, but I wouldn’t call it stupid in any case. The whole idea of a number or a logo is to stand out…to be easily seen by everyone, even those in the cheap seats or those with standard def TVs. I agree the Mets don’t need an outline, but the Tribe could use one.

The Cubs definitely need an outline, as do the Bills. The only problem I had with the Jim Kelly era Bills was the helmet striping. Make that a white-blue-white stripe instead of white-red-blue-red-white and you have something approaching perfection.

Oops, forgot St. Louis in my review – I like the first two, but not the alt red.

-Jet

Ricko|
April 30, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

“LA — I dunno, those red numbers make no sense logically, but they’ve become iconic. I can’t picture their unis without them.”

As stated, Dodgers have used red, sparingly, as an additional color as far back as the ’50s. Usually it was in spring training as a means of identifying minor league coaches and instructors and players, based on level of assignment in the system.

Jet|
April 30, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

You’re right Ricko, can’t believe I overlooked the obvious because I’m familiar with that Dodgers logo with the red “motion” lines

Ron Rowland’s Brewers uniforms are outstanding! They should switch to them right now. The only tweak I might make is the sleeve patch on the road uniforms. I have never liked that particular logo. A few years ago I got a Brewers batting practice hat which had the current “M” logo in blue over the top of a gold image of the map of Wisconsin. Now that would look great on the roadie sleeves. Great work Ron!

That IS a cool mark. What I was attempting was a counterpoint between the “mb” logo mark on the chest with the “Brewers” word mark for the sleeve, setting up a contrast with what I did on the home uni, using the “mb” on the sleeve and “Brewers” script on the chest. Rookie effort. : )